Crewed Mission to Mars--Jan. 2018

Space tourist millionaire Denis Tito is set to announce next week (Feb. 27) that his space non-profit will be organizing a crewed flyby of Mars, set to launch in January 2018. Some details:

--501 day mission

--two crew

--only a flyby of Mars and then returning to Earth

--modified Space X Dragon spacecraft

--launched on a Falcon Heavy rocket

--entirely private (i.e., non-government) funded

I get the sense that they won't be doing much about the solar radiation danger during the mission (as they didn't for the Apollo missions), but this is a whole lot longer in deep space than anything tried before. So that concerns me somewhat.

On the other hand, this actually seems to be a feasible, straightforward, and cheap way to "get people to Mars", even if it doesn't involve orbiting or landing on the planet. I'm surprised I haven't heard a proposal like this before (maybe I'm just unaware).

What do people here think? Is this a good first step? A stupid, dangerous stunt that will likely get people killed? Both?

It would be cool to see people "at" Mars in my lifetime. Fascinating it could actually happen!

We're just not there yet, nor do I expect any current or soon to be flying hardware to be up to the task within 4.5 years - and that's ignoring the physiological considerations which are really the toughest thing to deal with.

EDIT:

To expand upon this a bit: I don't see any manned mission to Mars (or beyond) being remotely feasible with any form of chemical propellant. They're just not fast enough.

But I do not think, if it is actually correct, that the people doing it are stupid just because it is risky.

That depends, really. There's no such thing as complete safety, and just because something is risky doesn't automatically make doing it stupid.

But what you have to consider is what's an "acceptable risk". Something like this with purpose designed hardware, highly trained people and as much planning and effort as was put into the Moon landings - all for some significant, measurable gain to humanity? Not stupid, and probably worth the risk.

In repurposed hardware, with no consideration to the real issues to be overcome (surviving the trip), on (put politely) a rather optimistic timetable for a couple of tourists? Stupid. Or at best, extremely ill-advised.

I'm as big of a proponent of manned spaceflight as you're ever likely to find, but this strikes me as the celestial equivalent of planning to summit Everest during the height of winter in nothing but beachware and with a boxed lunch for supplies - just to say, "Hey, did it!"

If someone wants to attempt it I wouldn't stop them, but looking at the technology alone I'd rate this at an extremely low chance of success, and again, the technology is the easy part of it.

If their objective is to just fire a couple of humans off toward the red planet and they don't really care what they get back on a free-return flight - yeah, no problem. They can do that in under 5 years easily.

If they want to actually get living people back - that's hard.

If they want to get living people in good condition who were not permanently harmed by the trip - the difficulty goes to 11.

We (as a species) have about a 50% success rate when it comes to getting unmanned stuff to Mars. Now double that trip, and make crew survival the overriding requirement. Sorry, I just don't see it happening now, or within 5 years. Not with any derivative of current hardware, nor with any proposed hardware that could be flying and man-rated within that timeframe.

I'd love to be proven wrong, but I have a feeling this will happen around the same time the tourists can ride a Skycar to the launchpad.

I get the sense that they won't be doing much about the solar radiation danger during the mission (as they didn't for the Apollo missions), but this is a whole lot longer in deep space than anything tried before. So that concerns me somewhat.

Doesn't concern me at all. Obviously this is a vanity flight being undertaken by people who are willing to literally become guinea pigs for deep space flight. Good luck to them, but I see it exactly the same as if someone were to try to cross Antarctica on skis or climb Everest without supplemental oxygen: it's extremely dangerous, and there's no real reason to do it besides to see if you can do it, so I'm not going to cry for you if you die.

We (as a species) have about a 50% success rate when it comes to getting unmanned stuff to Mars. Now double that trip, and make crew survival the overriding requirement. Sorry, I just don't see it happening now, or within 5 years. Not with any derivative of current hardware, nor with any proposed hardware that could be flying and man-rated within that timeframe.

I was going to challenge this statement on the distinction between landers and missions that stay in space, but looking at Wikipedia, that actually is the right number. Wow, that's a painful track record. On the other hand, looking at only NASA's record (generous, in this case since it's not a NASA initiative), they've succeeded in 15 of 20 missions, which still isn't great for human-rating. The Russians have a stunningly poor record with a lot of attempts dragging down humanity's overall average.

Since LEO-to-Mars-transfer Δv is about 4.3km/s, and the Falcon Heavy's 2nd stage Isp is 342s, then the mass ratio required to achieve Mars transfer using it is e(4.3km/s / (342s x 9.8m/s2)) ~ 3.6.

Since the Falcon Heavy will be able to put 53,000kg into LEO including the empty second stage, it could put about 14,700kg into a Mars transfer orbit including the dry second stage (about 4,700kg).

People eat about 1000kg/yr, if about a quarter of that is carbon then they'd also need 250kg/yr x 32/12 ~ 667kg of O2. A two-person 501-day mission would thus need about 4,500kg of consumables, plus about 1000kg of water each.

Dry mass of a vanilla Dragon capsule is 4,200kg. So together with consumables, no water recycling, two crew and the second stage setup gives about 15,700kg. (The heat shield would have rather more to contend with on the way home, but allegedly can handle it already).

Could a Dragon modification, second stage fuel tank extension, maneuvering fuel and margin for the consumables fit into minus 1,000kg? Well, if they dessicate the food (~1,400kg) and recycle the water (~1,800kg) then conceivably. I've no idea how massive CO2 scrubbers are.

So they might be able to do it in a single launch of the Falcon Heavy with water recycling, if the crew don't kill each other or develop radiation issues. Without water recycling, they'd need on-orbit refueling, and I doubt that's going to happen any time soon.

I was going to challenge this statement on the distinction between landers and missions that stay in space, but looking at Wikipedia, that actually is the right number. Wow, that's a painful track record.

Yeah, it's a bit surprising, then again, when you consider the distance involved, perhaps not.

While it's a few years old, I like this representation of the missions so far. The major updates listed under "future" are for Phobos-Grunt (failed in LEO) and MSL (success).

Quote:

On the other hand, looking at only NASA's record (generous, in this case since it's not a NASA initiative), they've succeeded in 15 of 20 missions, which still isn't great for human-rating.

That's the tricky bit here, IMO. It's clear if you're "Not NASA" your chances are extremely low. And even NASA, who are by far and away the best at it, only have about a 75% success rate. While those odds are 'better than not' for unmanned stuff - add the complexity of a manned mission and I wouldn't expect them to be able to sustain such a high rate of success. Which really doesn't bode well for anyone else far less experienced trying their hand at it.

In short, if I was going to take the ride to Mars, at this point I wouldn't do it in anything other than a NASA vehicle, and even then, I wouldn't really expect to make it back alive.

Granted, reportedly even Apollo 11 was internally rated at about a 50/50 chance of success when it was launched, but there was a lot more at stake at the time and going to the Moon and back is far easier. Optimistically, even odds for what amounts to nothing more than a sightseeing tourist flyby of Mars strikes me as rather irresponsible, but if someone with tons of money and no aversion to a potentially lingering, spectacular suicide wants to give it a shot, have at it.

I also wouldn't give it more than about a 25% chance of bringing both "crew" (and I use that term lightly) home alive.

A good approach would be to launch and part-stock one of Bigelow's bloody great self-sealing inflatable things in LEO with one launch, then crew it, fully stock it and transfer it to Mars with another launch.

Done with the right launch window, Mars itself will send the crew back home with a correction of less than 1,000m/s delta-V (they came from 1 AU, they have to go back there unless they really fuck up the Mars encounter).

A lot of people on another forum I read are saying things like "all exploration is risky" and comparing this to the Age of Discovery and the colonization of the Americas or to polar expeditions, etc. To me there is a huge difference in that if something goes wrong and say they can't make the correction burns to make it back alright (which you need even on a free return) then we'll have a year of video feed of people who are going to be dying soon...

Unlike most LEO scenarios (esp. now with ISS) there's just no intervention that could be made to help them if something goes wrong.

There really doesn't seem to be any point in making this a manned mission, IMO. The craft could make the flight quite effectively on its own under automated control, and simultaneously record everything important about the survivability conditions without actually risking anyone's life.

It also strikes me as really really really pointless to make a 500-day flight and not land. We already know pretty much everything we need to know about intra-system conditions in space from numerous flights in the past anyway.

There really doesn't seem to be any point in making this a manned mission, IMO. The craft could make the flight quite effectively on its own under automated control, and simultaneously record everything important about the survivability conditions without actually risking anyone's life.

It also strikes me as really really really pointless to make a 500-day flight and not land. We already know pretty much everything we need to know about intra-system conditions in space from numerous flights in the past anyway.

Yup. This would just be a stunt.

In my mind, even landing, planting a flag, and leaving would be stunt. Send people up there when you can sustain a base long enough to do real work and live on the planet for while. Or permanently. Until then, robots.

I guess it's 'space tourism', not science or colonization, so they can do what they want.

We watch BBC and NatGeo specials about Antarctica all the time, and many more have died there. The oceans of Earth, alone, have taken at least 5 orders of magnitude more.

The Russian failures at Mars missions is surprising since they did so well with Venera craft.

Well, you know the Great Galactic Ghoul loves borscht...

Anyways, there are some fairly good reasons for that. One is that Mars is just a little bit farther away, time-wise, than Venus. It's not much, but several of the Soviet failures to Mars were caused by part degradation over time, so even a slight difference could become a large factor. A second issue is that while we had a reasonably accurate read on Venus' properties, especially its atmosphere, pre-spaceflight (insofar as we knew it existed and was probably pretty thick), not so much on Mars (people overestimated its surface pressure by nearly an order of magnitude). This meant that pre-spaceflight designs for Venus probes could return useful data, whereas Mars probes would crash and burn. Which they did. Third, there were no Mars probes launched by the Soviets during probably the optimal period for them to do so, between about 1977 and 1985 or so. During this period, their space industry had largely cured the issues that had plagued them in the 1960s (where, for instance, about half of the first twenty or so Protons failed during launch), but hadn't started suffering from the general issues faced in the late Soviet Union quite yet.

Finally, nothing succeeds like success. Their Venus probes were successful, ahead of the United States...so they focused on them more.

It also strikes me as really really really pointless to make a 500-day flight and not land. We already know pretty much everything we need to know about intra-system conditions in space from numerous flights in the past anyway.

This is already stretching what we can do with just a fly-by. Landing increases the delta-V requirements and mission complexity immensely, we'd need four, maybe five launches.

This is already stretching what we can do with just a fly-by. Landing increases the delta-V requirements and mission complexity immensely, we'd need four, maybe five launches.

I know. But that doesn't make this current venture sound any less pointless. Space agencies already know pretty much everything they need to about long-term survival and isolation in cramped pressurised containers, and well as things like solar radiation conditions etc. on a Mars orbit interception. The only thing different about this would be two guys looking forlornly out the window and thinking "Fuck, that was the highlight, now how will I not kill this guy in the next 250 days ?".

This is already stretching what we can do with just a fly-by. Landing increases the delta-V requirements and mission complexity immensely, we'd need four, maybe five launches.

I know. But that doesn't make this current venture sound any less pointless. Space agencies already know pretty much everything they need to about long-term survival and isolation in cramped pressurised containers, and well as things like solar radiation conditions etc. on a Mars orbit interception. The only thing different about this would be two guys looking forlornly out the window and thinking "Fuck, that was the highlight, now how will I not kill this guy in the next 250 days ?".

Perhaps take two guys from a retirement home.

+ Small space to live in -- check.+ Same people to talk to -- check+ Crappy food all the time -- check. + Death might come from a variety of causes after the two years -- check.

Would 501 days's worth of provisions fit in a Dragon, with enough room for 2 crew?

Also, spending a year and a half in something the size of a Chevy conversion van...I dunno.

You know its funny, but thousands of prisoners in dubious countries around the world spend far longer periods of time in complete isolation, and they turn out ok. Of course, the astronauts on this trip would most likely have access to virtual reality equipment and terabytes of media and immersive software to give them the illusion of space and freedom, for sake of maintaining their sanity. Indeed, they would also have ample supplies of anti-anxiety and anti-depressants as well.

Doesn't concern me at all. Obviously this is a vanity flight being undertaken by people who are willing to literally become guinea pigs for deep space flight. Good luck to them, but I see it exactly the same as if someone were to try to cross Antarctica on skis or climb Everest without supplemental oxygen: it's extremely dangerous, and there's no real reason to do it besides to see if you can do it, so I'm not going to cry for you if you die.

Christopher Columbus heard the same speech... You'll fall over the edge of the world they said!

Ernest Shackleton also heard the EXACT same criticisms. Why bother? Waste of money!

Almost makes one wonder why we silly humans bother doing anything. Its such a dangerous universe out there after all.

Anyone who makes the first trip to Mars will be heroes for the ages, schools would be named after them.

Doesn't concern me at all. Obviously this is a vanity flight being undertaken by people who are willing to literally become guinea pigs for deep space flight. Good luck to them, but I see it exactly the same as if someone were to try to cross Antarctica on skis or climb Everest without supplemental oxygen: it's extremely dangerous, and there's no real reason to do it besides to see if you can do it, so I'm not going to cry for you if you die.

Christopher Columbus heard the same speech... You'll fall over the edge of the world they said!

Ernest Shackleton also heard the EXACT same criticisms. Why bother? Waste of money!

Almost makes one wonder why we silly humans bother doing anything. Its such a dangerous universe out there after all.

Anyone who makes the first trip to Mars will be heroes for the ages, schools would be named after them.

Well, Christopher Columbus did not know for sure the world was round. And he was looking for India. This trip has no purpose other than maybe sightseeing at best.

In this case, we know exactly what they will see. And we already know exactly how it has to be done. There is nothing to be gained from this trip in terms of knowledge, experience, etc.

I guess there is some merit to actually undergoing a pointless trip just so you can say I was the first man to orbit around mars (they aren't even landing)

In this case, we know exactly what they will see. And we already know exactly how it has to be done. There is nothing to be gained from this trip in terms of knowledge, experience, etc.

I guess there is some merit to actually undergoing a pointless trip just so you can say I was the first man to orbit around mars (they aren't even landing)

We have a theoretical framework for what we expect humans will encounter and endure on such a voyage to Mars orbit, but until it is actually carried out, a theory it remains. There is no substitute for the real thing.

And ONLY orbit? Human's haven't been past our own Moon. Making the trip to Mars, which is thousands upon thousands of times greater distance will be a staggering achievement.

nyone who makes the first trip to Mars will be heroes for the ages, schools would be named after them.

For what? Sitting in a can for 500 days? For risking their lives for a picture that we already have in better detail?

If anyone should get credit, it would be the engineers that got this to work. The humans on this flight are pointless.

Where does this attitude come from? Private Enterprise is just now branching out into outer space. In the next fifty years we'll have asteroid mining, moon bases, orbital bases. It's all coming together.

Actually he did. And so did pretty much everyone else. It had been known for roughly 1700 years at that point.

Columbus was somewhat confused about the size of the Earth however, and was convinced (with rather questionable justification) that it was far smaller than it really was - thus making going around to arrive at India seem quicker. Few of his contemporaries believed he was correct - but it had nothing to do with the shape of the Earth.

As for Shackleton - at least he went prepared with experienced people, though that trip was also mainly one of vanity, with little scientific value ever intended from the outset. I suppose in that respect it has parallels to this plan, but the Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition is hardly a role model for any trip.

Another thing to keep in mind was that the crews going to the Moon 40 years ago were nearly all experienced crews who had had considerable time in space prior and been through quite a bit that prepared them for the missions that followed. That would not be the case here, where the "crew" is little more than cargo.

None of those great explorers were simply tourists when they did their 'great things'. They were, as close as could be - trained, experienced professionals. That alone sets them apart from a couple of billionares who may be stuffed into a can and shot into a 1 AU loop around Mars. There's no exploration there, there's no inspirational gain for humanity. It's highly perishable cargo in a can.

Lindbergh got credit for flying across the Atlantic because he believed it could be done. He worked hard to design and build the proper equipment, and trained hard to make it happen - finally succeeding through experience and determination (and luck).

No one gets credit (save for possibly frequent flier miles) for flying across the Atlantic because they could afford the ticket. All they have to do is sit there.

nyone who makes the first trip to Mars will be heroes for the ages, schools would be named after them.

For what? Sitting in a can for 500 days? For risking their lives for a picture that we already have in better detail?

If anyone should get credit, it would be the engineers that got this to work. The humans on this flight are pointless.

Where does this attitude come from? Private Enterprise is just now branching out into outer space. In the next fifty years we'll have asteroid mining, moon bases, orbital bases. It's all coming together.

For the record, I'm completely unopposed to private industry doing this. Stupid? Yes. Laudable? No. But, it is their money, so they can go ahead and waste it if they want.

If my money (through taxes) were on the line, I'd be still aiming for more space exploration through robots. If your point is science, send robots. If your point is to endanger people so you can say that two people sat still for 500 days, send humans.

If my money (through taxes) were on the line, I'd be still aiming for more space exploration through robots. If your point is science, send robots. If your point is to endanger people so you can say that two people sat still for 500 days, send humans.

If this is a for-profit venture, technologies can be patented and sold, branding rights, advertising, movie/tv, ect... a private manned mission, no matter how pointless it may seem, stands to make more money than a mars robot.

Doesn't concern me at all. Obviously this is a vanity flight being undertaken by people who are willing to literally become guinea pigs for deep space flight. Good luck to them, but I see it exactly the same as if someone were to try to cross Antarctica on skis or climb Everest without supplemental oxygen: it's extremely dangerous, and there's no real reason to do it besides to see if you can do it, so I'm not going to cry for you if you die.

Christopher Columbus heard the same speech... You'll fall over the edge of the world they said!

Columbus also didn't set sail in a dinghy.

I know it's bigger than it looks, but a Dragon isn't that big. That's going to be a very tight space to live, eat, sleep, work, and take a dump in for a year and a half.

Something else I just thought of...power. They're going to have to seriously beef up the solar arrays on the trunk. Can't exactly go into a low-power mode for the bulk of the trip like the unmanned missions can.

Quote:

Ernest Shackleton also heard the EXACT same criticisms. Why bother? Waste of money!

Almost makes one wonder why we silly humans bother doing anything. Its such a dangerous universe out there after all.

Anyone who makes the first trip to Mars will be heroes for the ages, schools would be named after them.

There's risky, and then there's stupid risky. Based on the description given in the OP, this sounds stupid risky. This sounds like the idiots who climb Everest without adequately preparing themselves and wind up dying halfway up the mountain. Those people are not heroes, they're morons.

That's kind of a good point. It should be a shorter trip (depending on orbital dynamics). Keeping someone fed, watered, and aired for 365 days (just making that up there) would be easier than 501 days.

Then again, the best bet for humanity to potentially set up a permanent manned base is Mars (or the Moon, obviously). There's no way it could happen on Venus, so maybe, other than saying you were the first person (or two people) to pass by another planet, there'd be no other benefit to passing Venus. (It would be cool though!)

If my money (through taxes) were on the line, I'd be still aiming for more space exploration through robots. If your point is science, send robots. If your point is to endanger people so you can say that two people sat still for 500 days, send humans.

If this is a for-profit venture, technologies can be patented and sold, branding rights, advertising, movie/tv, ect... a private manned mission, no matter how pointless it may seem, stands to make more money than a mars robot.

In this case, we know exactly what they will see. And we already know exactly how it has to be done. There is nothing to be gained from this trip in terms of knowledge, experience, etc.

That's pretty much it. There would undoubtedly be some ancillary data, but as I and others have said, we already know a hell of a lot about putting people in pressurised containers for long periods, and the flight itself has already been done by automated probes several times. Without a landing, it's an awesome view out of a porthole for a few days, and that's pretty much it.

There will be no shortage of people vying to among the two chosen for this mission, if it ever happens, even if it's likely suicide. It's a guarantee of immortality. Plenty of people have died willingly for far more stupid reasons, and continue to do so.

The biggest obstacle facing this endeavor will be simple economics. How much will it cost? How will it be financed? Will there be a reality TV show?